[Mephisto]

Originally posted by jimbob:

1) Can anyone honestly believe that diplomacy could have worked without threat of force?

2) Does anyone honestly believe that Sadam's regime would disarm through diplomacy alone, given the prior track record?

If so, why does anyone believe 1) or 2)? Give me some reasons that are sound, not just more anti-American rhetoric about international law. I for one am willing to believe that there was another way, but I can not (yet) see any other way from my perspective.

The answer to your questions are from my perspective certainly no. Without the threat of force Sadam would have done nothing but laughing at us. However, he started to comply at least to some extend. With more time we would either have known quite surely that he has or has not WMD. With this result one could have argued in the UN easily and rally the world behind you. But I think the US admin wanted to invade Iraq in the first place with or without prove because they are not really there for the WMD. Second, the US had already accumulated much to many forces for just a threat and it got expensive to keep them there. And of course the weather in the region forces you to fight now or not for several month. I would like to ask a question in return:

Can anyone honestly believe that giving the UN just a bit more time would have meant any harm to the cause?